Madras High Court
Valsalam ... Revision vs Rajamony on 22 February, 2022
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :22.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.849 of 2022
Valsalam ... Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Rajamony
2.R.K.Jain
3.Asle ...Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decretal order dated
09.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2020 in O.S. No.286 of 2011 on the file
of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram and thereby allow the
Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Balakrishnan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair
order and decretal order dated 09.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2020 in
1 /4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
O.S. No.286 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram.
2.I.A.No.2 of 2020 was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under
Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure code, to amend the
plaint, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Revision Petition
has been filed.
3.A perusal of records show that the suit in O.S.No.286 of 2011 was
filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the year 2011 seeking for
permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants have filed a written
statement in the year 2012 and denied the title of the revision
petitioner/plaintiff. But the present I.A.No.2 of 2020 filed for amendment,
after eight years, which is clearly barred by limitation. Since the
respondents/defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff in their written
statement filed in the year 2012, the revision petitioner/plaintiff ought to
have filed an amendment petition within three years. But the revision
2 /4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
petitioner/plaintiff has filed a petition after eight years. As per judgment
reported in 2015(6)CTC 526 (SC) in the case of L.C.Hanumanthappa Vs.
H.B.Shivkumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment shall
be allowed subject to the plea of limitation. In this case, the amendment is
clearly barred by limitation, which was filed by the revision
petitioner/plaintiff after eight years. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly
dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2020. This Court finds no valid reason to interfere
with the order of the Court below.
4.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The
order dated 09.11.2021 made in I.A. No.2 of 2020 in O.S. No.286 of 2011
passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is
hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsd
3 /4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Padmanabhapuram.
C.R.P(MD).No.195 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.849 of 2022
22.02.2022
4 /4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
